Todd Fatheree wrote:

: Hey, Andy, have you read every piece of paper that's been written on the
: subject of Iraq?


No, have you?


But I have read a lot, including the Taguba report. Which is the most
relevant "piece of paper" to the issue at hand. It's not some obscure
little document. It's the official military investigation into
allegations of abuse, and it was commissioned by the ranking military
officer in Iraq.

: When you have, you can chide someone for not having read
: the Taguba report.

Anyone who comments on this issue should have already read the
report.

All the relevant section states is that approx. 60% of
: the detainees who were being held for "Crimes Against the Coalition" are
: deemed to no longer pose a threat.

So, either they were terrorists and have had a verified
change o' heart, or else they weren't threats to
society to begin with. Which was my point.

: Sorry...in my book, pointing at a guys wang doesn't constitute
: torture.

How about being sodomized with a chemical light? Beaten?

Look, it's pretty clear. Some of the detainees at the prison were
mistreated, in violation fo the Geneva Convention. This has been known
since December, with preceding reports suggesting this was so going back
to September. This much is uncontroversial.

Where the debating gets pointful is in respect to two questions:

a) Did this form of treatment originate with the
rank and file soldiers, or higher up the chain of command?

b) Did the personnel higher up the chain of command (up to and including
Rumsfeld and Bush) know about this, and are they responsible for some of
the blame? Did they ignore the Taguba report, and related reports from
the Red Cross?

-- Andy Barss